Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each other. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. These guidelines illustrate how conflicts should be handled in Fedora, specifically concerning when and when not to use the <code>Conflicts:</code> field.

+

Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each other. Conflicts result in a transaction set where the user has to decipher the error message and make some sort of decision. The transaction set doesn't provide information to the user about why two packages conflict to help them make an informed decision.

+

+

As Fedora packagers, we try to make it so both packages will install and run. Unfortunately, this is not always possible but we can usually make it so that both packages can install and the user can decide which package to enable when they configure the new package.. In the few remaining cases, we have to use <code>Conflicts:</code> tags. These guidelines illustrate how conflicts should be handled in Fedora, specifically concerning when and when not to use the <code>Conflicts:</code> field.

{{Anchor|AcceptableUsesOfConflicts}}

{{Anchor|AcceptableUsesOfConflicts}}

+

== Acceptable Uses of Conflicts: ==

== Acceptable Uses of Conflicts: ==

As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the <code>Conflicts:</code> field. This field is commonly misused, when a <code>Requires:</code> would usually be more appropriate. It confuses depsolvers and end-users for no good reason. However, there are some cases in which using the <code>Conflicts:</code> field is appropriate and acceptable.

As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the <code>Conflicts:</code> field. This field is commonly misused, when a <code>Requires:</code> would usually be more appropriate. It confuses depsolvers and end-users for no good reason. However, there are some cases in which using the <code>Conflicts:</code> field is appropriate and acceptable.

Line 49:

Line 52:

=== Compat Package Conflicts ===

=== Compat Package Conflicts ===

It is acceptable to use <code>Conflicts:</code> in some cases involving compat packages. These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and foo-compat-devel packages need to <code>Conflict:</code>. Whenever possible, this should be avoided.

It is acceptable to use <code>Conflicts:</code> in some cases involving compat packages. These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and foo-compat-devel packages need to <code>Conflict:</code>. Whenever possible, this should be avoided.

In the specific case where multiple software components generate identically named (but incompatible) binaries, Fedora Packagers should make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict (see: [[Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts]]). However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict, '''AND''' the binaries are not viable candidates for alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager's discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.

+

+

Be aware, adding explicit Conflicts means that if any other packages depend on your package, you may be creating a chain-of-conflicts that could cause user pain. Please consider this as a last resort.

{{Anchor|ConflictingFiles}}

{{Anchor|ConflictingFiles}}

−

== Conflicting Files ==

+

== Common Conflicting Files Cases and Solutions ==

There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple packages. Fedora strongly discourages using <code>Conflicts:</code> to resolve these cases. Here are some suggestions which can be used to resolve these conflicts (note that not all file conflict cases are listed, nor are all possible solutions):

There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple packages. Fedora strongly discourages using <code>Conflicts:</code> to resolve these cases. Here are some suggestions which can be used to resolve these conflicts (note that not all file conflict cases are listed, nor are all possible solutions):

Line 70:

Line 79:

=== Binary Name Conflicts ===

=== Binary Name Conflicts ===

* Convince upstream to rename the binaries to something less generic (or just less conflicting).

* Convince upstream to rename the binaries to something less generic (or just less conflicting).

−

* In the case where the conflicting binaries provide the same functionality, you can then rename the binaries with a prefix, and use "alternatives" to let the end user to select which generic name is the default. Note that this is usually not the case.

+

* In the case where the conflicting binaries provide the same functionality, you can then rename the binaries with a prefix, and use [[Packaging:Alternatives]] to let the system administrator select which generic name is the default. Note that this is usually not the case.

+

* In cases where the binaries provide similar functionality [[Packaging:EnvironmentModules]] may be an option. This is more flexible than alternatives and is for things that each individual on a system may want to choose between rather than a system administrator.

Conflicts Guidelines

Conflicts

Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each other. Conflicts result in a transaction set where the user has to decipher the error message and make some sort of decision. The transaction set doesn't provide information to the user about why two packages conflict to help them make an informed decision.

As Fedora packagers, we try to make it so both packages will install and run. Unfortunately, this is not always possible but we can usually make it so that both packages can install and the user can decide which package to enable when they configure the new package.. In the few remaining cases, we have to use Conflicts: tags. These guidelines illustrate how conflicts should be handled in Fedora, specifically concerning when and when not to use the Conflicts: field.

Acceptable Uses of Conflicts:

As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the Conflicts: field. This field is commonly misused, when a Requires: would usually be more appropriate. It confuses depsolvers and end-users for no good reason. However, there are some cases in which using the Conflicts: field is appropriate and acceptable.

Implicit Conflicts

Keep in mind that implicit conflicts are NEVER acceptable. If your package conflicts with another package, then you must either resolve the conflict, or mark it with Conflicts:.

Optional Functionality

Some software can utilize other optional software applications if present, but do not require them to be installed. If they are not installed, the software will still function properly. However, if those other "optional applications" are too old, then the software won't work. This is an acceptable use of the Conflicts: field. The packager must document the reason in a comment above the Conflicts: field:

Example:

Conflicts: unrar < 2.0

If the software links to the libraries of another package, it must use Requires: instead of Conflicts: to mark that dependency. Also, if the software does not function properly without another package being installed, it must use Requires: instead of Conflicts:.

The packager should ask:

If the package (at the correct version) in Conflicts: is not present, will my package be functional?

If the answer is yes, then it is probably a valid use of Conflicts:. If the answer is no, then it is almost certainly a better case for Requires:.

For example, if foo-game needs libbar to run, but will not work with libbar that is older than 1.2.3:

WRONG: Conflicts: libbar < 1.2.3 RIGHT: Requires: libbar >= 1.2.3

Packagers should keep usage of Conflicts: to a bare minimum. Only upgrading from two previous release of Fedora is supported, so Conflicts against older packages than that, while technically correct, are unnecessary, and should not be included.

Compat Package Conflicts

It is acceptable to use Conflicts: in some cases involving compat packages. These are the cases where it is not feasible to patch applications to look in alternate locations for the -compat files, so the foo-devel and foo-compat-devel packages need to Conflict:. Whenever possible, this should be avoided.

In the specific case where multiple software components generate identically named (but incompatible) binaries, Fedora Packagers should make every effort to convince the upstreams to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict (see: Packaging:Conflicts#Binary_Name_Conflicts). However, if neither upstream is willing to rename the binaries to resolve the conflict, AND the binaries are not viable candidates for alternatives or environment modules (incompatible runtimes), as long as there are no clear cases for both packages to be installed simultaneously, explicit Conflicts are permitted at the packager's discretion. Both packages must carry Conflicts in this case.

Be aware, adding explicit Conflicts means that if any other packages depend on your package, you may be creating a chain-of-conflicts that could cause user pain. Please consider this as a last resort.

Common Conflicting Files Cases and Solutions

There are many types of files which can conflict between multiple packages. Fedora strongly discourages using Conflicts: to resolve these cases. Here are some suggestions which can be used to resolve these conflicts (note that not all file conflict cases are listed, nor are all possible solutions):

Man Page Name Conflicts

Rename the man pages to slightly alter the suffix of the man page (e.g man1/check.1.gz and man1/check.1foo.gz)

Rename the man pages to include a prefix of the providing package (e.g. foo-check.1.gz and bar-check.1.gz)

Library Name Conflicts

Put the library in a subdirectory of /usr/lib or /lib and include a ld.so.conf file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/.

Header Name Conflicts

Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include.

Binary Name Conflicts

Convince upstream to rename the binaries to something less generic (or just less conflicting).

In the case where the conflicting binaries provide the same functionality, you can then rename the binaries with a prefix, and use Packaging:Alternatives to let the system administrator select which generic name is the default. Note that this is usually not the case.

In cases where the binaries provide similar functionality Packaging:EnvironmentModules may be an option. This is more flexible than alternatives and is for things that each individual on a system may want to choose between rather than a system administrator.

Approaching Upstream

When renaming or putting files into subdirectories, it is a good idea to try
to get upstream to rename their conflicting files (for instance if they both had commands named %{_bindir}/trash). Doing some research about which has been around longer may be useful in this case but may or may not be persuasive to upstream.

If neither upstream renames, we would then approach other distributions (distributions-list[at]freedesktop.org is a good place to discuss this) about renaming that can be done in all distros. That helps end users going from one distro to another to have consistency. Length of time that the projects have been around, how popular each is, and numerous other factors may play a role in this decision. Once a decision is made, we would rename the Fedora packages to match.

Potential Conflicting Files

We don't just try to avoid conflicts with existing packages within Fedora but
also potential conflicts. This is because the first package to enter Fedora is
not always the one that should take on the name. There are several scenarios
in which this could come into play:

There is a conflicting package that is not in Fedora yet (found by doing a web search, for instance)

There is no conflict yet but the filename is likely to be used by another project (something like /usr/bin/parser)

In the first case, where a conflicting package is known to exist but is not yet in Fedora, we should go through the process of determining which package has a more valid claim to the name and rename the files in the package we're including if it doesn't have the more valid claim. If you think your situation is unique, please send email to fedora-devel-list[at]redhat.com to make your case.

In the second case, where there is no known package to conflict with at this time, it is up to the packager to make a decision. Note that it is encouraged that you at least speak to upstream about the potential for conflicts. However, we can hope that any later projects that attempt to use that name can be persuaded to rename based on this project being around longer.

Standard Commands

Common names are allowed for standard commands since those will be the
only commands to implement them. Standard commands include things
provided for in published and widely implemented standards like POSIX
and de facto standards such as a program that has traditionally been
shipped with a certain filename as part of a large number of Unix
variants. If in doubt, send a message to fedora-devel-list[at]redhat.com
with details of what standards
the command appears in, how long it's been available on what Unix
systems, and whether you've found any conflicting programs that
implement a substantially different command with the same filename.

Conflicting Package Names

Just as files can conflict, package names can as well. Conflicting package names MUST be resolved. Package names which differ only in case are still considered to be conflicting. You should follow the same basic steps outlined in #Approaching_Upstream

Renaming packages and replacing them with others can be difficult if it has to occur at a later time (for instance, upgrade paths can become complex in these situations) so it is even more important to be aware of potential conflicts here than it is with filenames.

Other Uses of Conflicts:

If you find yourself in a situation where you feel that your package has to conflict with another package (either explicitly or implicitly), but does not fit the documented accepted cases above, then you need to make your case to the Fedora Packaging Committee. If they agree, then, and only then can you use Conflicts: in a Fedora package. Remember, whenever you use Conflicts:, you are also required to include the reasoning in a comment next to the Conflicts: entry, so that it will be abundantly clear why it needed to exist.